[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20211116184155.6c81b042@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2021 18:41:55 -0800
From: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
To: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
Cc: netdev@...r.kernel.org, Jay Vosburgh <j.vosburgh@...il.com>,
Veaceslav Falico <vfalico@...il.com>,
Andy Gospodarek <andy@...yhouse.net>,
Jarod Wilson <jarod@...hat.com>, Jiri Pirko <jiri@...nulli.us>,
"David S . Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Denis Kirjanov <dkirjanov@...e.de>,
David Ahern <dsahern@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next] Bonding: add missed_max option
On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:01:15 +0800 Hangbin Liu wrote:
> > >
> > > static const struct nla_policy bond_slave_policy[IFLA_BOND_SLAVE_MAX + 1] = {
> > > @@ -453,6 +454,15 @@ static int bond_changelink(struct net_device *bond_dev, struct nlattr *tb[],
> > > return err;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + if (data[IFLA_BOND_MISSED_MAX]) {
> > > + int missed_max = nla_get_u8(data[IFLA_BOND_MISSED_MAX]);
> >
> > If you read and write a u8?
>
> Ah, that's a typo. I planed to use nla_get_u32(). But looks NLA_U8 also should
> be enough. WDYT?
Either way is fine. To be sure we don't need to enforce any lower limit
here? 0 is a valid setting?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists